Okay. You had some questions today. What are they? Any? Or did you just forget what I said the other day?

Male voice: No. Well, I'll ask a question.

Okay.

Male voice: Would you pay any attention to a past life, space opera or an engram if it came after a preclear insisted from his previous training that .. . Would you pay any attention to it?

Male voice: Yes.

If you ignored it and said to the preclear, "No, we can't do any . . ." This will come up. If you ignored it and refused to pay any attention to it, you would break communication with the preclear. Is this right?

Male voice: Sure.

And so therefore, it would be necessary to explain to him that there were hotter methods of handling past lives, engrams, space opera and other material. There'd be much hotter ways of handling this. And he might or might not be happy about this.

I've had people come in just . . . who wanted to get an engram run just to see if there was an engram, and so forth. I've been very accommodating, and run them. But when you realize that you may get yourself into eight, fifteen, twenty hours of running on an incident, as we used to in the old days, why

(1) you would be careful not to break two-way communication with the preclear,

(2) you would be careful to run a process which would recover him from this horrible incident as fast as possible.

Now, such a person who was worrying about that sort of thing is what? Come on.

Male voice: Short on havingness.

Male voice: Why, I suppose, yes.

You suppose? It's damned obvious.

He has these engrams pulled in because of two things:

(1) he's short on an interest in life,

(2) he's short on havingness.

There's a reason why he's doing this. He's fighting himself. You could leave him in this happy state of affairs of fighting himself if you wanted to. He's fighting the past. He's trying to change the past and this is his main difficulty. You got that?

Male voice: Yeah. One moment following the next.

I don't think you've got this one yet.

Male voice: Guess I haven't.

Answer this question for me, now.

Male voice: Okay.

What would happen to this engram?

Male voice: To the engram? You wouldn't run it out completely if he needed havingness. You would have him hold on to it. Second, you would do what you mentioned the other day, and that is create time for him.

You sure would. Of course, you understand he'd be better off to have it run.

Male voice: Oh, sure.

If we couldn't do anything much for him beyond just running it, we'd of course run it. But that's not true today. The actual fact of the matter is the more you change an engram around, why, the more liability there is for later techniques. See, this is a contest between what we knew and what we know.

Now, a fellow came in the other day in the most horrible condition I think a man could ever get in. He's completely battened down. He is so upset about havingness that although he has millions and millions and millions of dollars, he has to live in a ratty old tenement. Yeah, this guy is a real dog, and he's given auditors from the beginning a very, very bad time.

But this man is very, very proud of the fact that by snapping his fingers, you see, he could put people through engrams. He doesn't have any intention to make them better, particularly. He wouldn't care what he did. But bang! he can put them through an engram. And he got some successes. See, he bought some wins on people around him.

And since that time it's been utterly impossible to shake him out of these wins. And that's what he's really stuck in. That's what every Dianeticist is stuck in to some degree. He's stuck on first-book wins. He knows he processed somebody, by golly, and their legs got better. And he processed somebody and their headache went away. And he ran a prenatal and, by golly, this person didn't worry about his mother any more.

Well, sure, these are very, very easy attained goals. But how long have you got with this preclear? Let me tell you that that technique failed. Not because the technique itself fails, but because we just haven't got that many man-hours. Now, when it comes to altering around stacks of engrams, are you aware of the fact that a person, when exteriorized, can take them and shuffle them like a deck of cards?

Male voice: No, I haven't been in the condition to realize that. All I did was read about it.

All you did was read about it? I said it and so you weren't sure. Huh?

Male voice: Well .. .

What have we got here? Have you ever asked a preclear to do this when you had him outside?

Male voice: No. I haven't had a preclear outside.

How many you processed?

Male voice: Oh, around twenty, perhaps. I mean .. .

Huh?

Male voice: About twenty.

About twenty?

Male voice: Huh-uh.

Did you process them by asking them "be three feet back of their head"?

Male voice: No.

Oh. This accounts for it.

Now, when we have a condition here whereby we can make a person well faster — use it. Use it, for Christ sakes. I mean, there's no reason we use phlebotomy. Phlebotomy must have had its points or nobody would've used it, you see. There isn't any reason, though, to go on using phlebotomy. It must have had some points. See, it couldn't have been all bad, or you wouldn't have had every medical man in the civilized world bleeding patients. See, there must have been some workability. But they came along and they found better ways to heal this, better ways to handle this, and so on. Now, when we discover that there are better ways, we would be real stupid not to use these ways.

There was a fellow one time lecturing on Harvey, circulation of the blood — I think the old-time practitioner who had the tidal theory, I think his name was either Galena or something of that sort, or Gala, Galena, something. Real old-time practitioner — and he got up and he said to an assemblage of physicians — back in whatever it was, 1627; whenever Harvey wrote that book — "I would rather be wrong with Gala than right with Harvey." But fortunately, he's in the minority.

All right. Now, you are talking, of course, from an experience which is successful. Right?

Male voice: Yes.

And you haven't given this greater methodology enough break to know whether or not it's successful.

Male voice: No. I haven't had it myself

That's right. See? Now, we haven't run that so we don't know. I would've stopped investigation entirely had it been that every auditor was successful and every preclear was successful. I can successfully run engrams. I can run them like mad. But I found out my students couldn't run them. I've processed people since, who have been run by people we were trying to train. They can't duplicate. They won't go through that engram the second time or something of the sort.

And there seemed to be a large body of people, a tremendous number of people, who are so occluded and whose cases are in such perilous condition they cannot touch this. Well, this means if we had a technology or a methodology which would release these worst cases, we certainly would have one that would take an easy case and go bang! wouldn't we? Well, that is the way it works. You take the easy case and it goes bang! these days.

Now, I haven't taught you too much or lectured too arduously on exteriorization. But we're dealing with a fellow right now who has been turned over to research and investigation by his auditor. He was a paying preclear. And it wasn't that the processes being used on him weren't working, but they were working too slowly for this auditor. He processed this case — which has been in a wheelchair for a long time — he processed this case thirty-two hours. Oh, yes, the fellow will live now, and so forth, but this man is not walking straight up. He's still dependent on this wheelchair.

All right. This was too slow for him. Now, the auditor of which I speak has used very, very few old techniques, but has been rather thoroughly trained in modern technology. And here's his framework: "I worked on this guy for thirty-two hours. Thirty-two hours I worked on this guy, and he's not walking! What the hell! There's something about this case. Let me go see Ron, and let's get signed up. The dickens — something wrong here." That's a curious frame of mind, isn't it? This frame of mind would have been registered maybe by an old Dianetic auditor in 1950 — same frame of mind would have been registered on this basis: "You know, I've processed this case five hundred hours and he's no better. He certainly is a case for research and investigation." So there must be something in the certainty of these new processes.

Now, you know what we're going to do with this boy? This auditor was patty-caking with him. He was fooling with him. The case actually balked him. This man is in such horrible condition that he's actually dead from his feet up and practically beginning to rot. I mean, it's just that bad. Every neuron he has is pulled so tight you could play Yankee Doodle on it. His whole body is just caving into a ball. Undoubtedly there's a prenatal assisting this. You could look at this case, by the way, and you could see every Dianetic manifestation that we've ever described. He even talks right straight out of engrams. He is a beautiful example.

But modern technology would dictate a process — in view of the fact that he's in research and investigation now and doesn't know it. The processes run on him will be as follows: "Things you'd be willing to touch." Now, he has no concept of himself as a thetan nor anything else. We'll simply run that until he has some idea that he might be able to touch something except with a foot. And then we will run him on things he is willing to accept and reject until he's outside. And when we get him outside, we will rebuild his body by rearranging and putting together his GE anchor points. This is a long job today.

Let me call to your attention this job was impossible in 1950. He would have gone on living, probably, if we'd run these engrams and done some other things with him — Straightwire, and so forth. We would have lengthened his life certainly. But the view which we're taking of it today is that a successful audit of this person certainly should include his being able to walk. He should be able to come alive again. In the absence of our current technology, we would not be able to even vaguely think of doing it. Because he's practically dead.

We used to have cases, we said, "Point of no return." Well, this current case is not, modernly, a point of no return. But he's ... a year ago was at a point of no return. In other words, our point of no return has kept extending and extending and extending, getting less and less close to alive, see. Here is this fellow- alive, enthusiastic, interested in life, in good condition. The point of no return, let us say, would be 0.5 — below that. If he'd gotten down to 0.5 — the point of no return.

All right, here we find this fellow in grief, and so forth — the point of no return is 0.1. See, just almost dead. That's where our point of no return is today. Just almost dead. Now, that's what we're looking at when we look at techniques of exteriorization.

Now, I know of no other way to rebuild a body, except one. There's just one way I know of that you could actually rebuild a body. You have the pre-clear exteriorize — you work him toward exteriorization. Just use Intensive Procedure, sooner or later he'll bang out of his head.

By the way, R2 up to -22, run just exactly as given in the mimeographed edition of The Auditor's Handbook (that first edition), in the hands of Jack — who, by the way, is perfectly willing to vary, but he didn't vary in this case — he took apart a class of twenty-five students. Practically every person in that class of twenty-five students had had enormous quantities of 1950-type auditing. They'd had it for a long time. And on an exteriorization technique as given in that mimeographed edition, they were all feeling fine, they were exteriorized, and they were coming back together. Now, that's quite remarkable — that's quite remarkable. Look how many — how long they've been audited, and then they get in this advanced unit over there and Jack works on them and bangs them out.

Now, there is a question on exteriorization that many people ask, and they say, "Well, how do we know for certain whether or not a person is exteriorized?" And because there's no smashing certainty there, they avoid this. How do we know for certain? Well, how do we know for certain?

When the preclear tells you. That's when you know for certain. And if you're unwilling to take his say-so as to when he is exteriorized, you'll never know any other way. He knows he's out; he knows he can see.

Now, the rebuilding of anchor points has not been stressed in this particular class, but it actually will put back together again, a body. But the technique of how you rebuild anchor points is in The Auditor's Handbook, and it's administered like any other technique. But the difference is that you remedy the havingness of the anchor points. These anchor points are so stretched and stressed and balled up and broken apart, the preclear probably can't even see them after he exteriorizes until you have him mock up a lot of them and remedy the havingness of his body structure of his anchor points. Once you remedy that havingness, he can see these anchor points. He'll begin to assemble them, put them back together again, and you'll see his body straighten out.

We have found something that has a more positive, definite — you might even say, overbearing — effect upon a preclear than an engram. That is the sum total of discovery. We have found something that has more of an effect upon a preclear than an engram — himself. We found out that the awareness of awareness unit we talked about in Book One actually can be handled in such a way to have more punch than an engram. All right, if it can have more punch than an engram, that in spite of the engrams, we can go on and remedy these GE anchor points if we've got to process the body, why, we sure better use it. So the engram, the incident, and so forth, is nullified.

To go back to your original question — I haven't been giving you Dutch. I'm trying to give you something here. I recognize that you have not had enough bait in this class. You have not had enough people to process in this class. And the point-we're making here is simply don't break two-way communication with the preclear.

Yeah, he wants this run. He knows this is the thing to be run, and so forth. Without breaking two-way communication, insulting him, wrecking ARC with him, and so forth, why, just let him in on the fact that you are running it. Add a little deeper significance to the whole thing if you have to, and then just run Intensive Procedure and you will have better luck. Actually, you have better luck with R2-16 — using nothing but R2-16 you'll have better average luck than you will in running engrams, no matter the state of any case or exteriorization aside. We'll just forget about exteriorization, for-get about all this — if you were just to run R2-16.

Every auditor ... And let me give you guys a word of warning here; maybe everybody forgets this, misses it: If the only technique you had and the only understanding you had, or the only understanding which you gave auditors that you were training, was R2-16, Opening Procedure of 8-C — that's all you did — you would have a higher percentage of recovery than man has ever even vaguely experienced from whatever source.

Until you've seen somebody sit down and grind on this one, day after day, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, you really aren't in a position to appreciate the fact that you've got an all technique in Opening Procedure of 8-C. It's an all technique. You could somehow or other muck through what you ... You didn't know anything about two-way communication, you didn't know anything about the conditions of the body or something of this sort, but somehow or other you could muck through and you would actually bring him out of the woods.

The odd part of it is, you would sooner or later encounter phenomena which, if you tried to understand them and had no further education on this line, would be very baffling. You would encounter exteriorization eventually with R2-16.

Here's a horrible thing. We have a boy who is operating on a church charter. And he's one of the very early people in training. He evidently hired, without procuring from the HASI the right to train ... He's being a real bad boy. I mean, we'll have to really lower the boom on him — unfortunate. But he has hired a completely untrained auditor as his Instructor. He's hired some goddamned goof of a book auditor somewhere as his Instructor. We would have never been the wiser as to why there's no action in that part of the country — there's just no action, you know, dthuh; you know, nobody's getting well, nothing — if this wise guy without any training had not taken it upon himself to write us a highly authoritative letter on the subject of how Scientology and Dianetics do not work. His Instructor writes us a letter, which of course tips the whole hand.

We looked this guy, this Instructor, up in our files — yes, we know of this boy, as a subscriber. We look for him in vain in training courses. He has never had one. He's not in any certification list. He has never been through anybody's school anywhere. We look up in other lists which we have, and we find out he doesn't even have in his hand various publications or tape pack-ages. In other words, there he is, standing as an authority on Dianetics and Scientology in a rather wide, big part of the world — you know, it's a few counties; there are lots of people in those counties — and he has taken it upon him-self to train students, and he writes us in and tells us he isn't getting any results.

Well, he's, of course — this other boy who employed him to run this school, which he is not authorized to teach either — of course, is in this insidious frame of reference. He doesn't know either. He is the kind of a guy, who, no matter what he gains, you know, no matter what he escapes from, what-ever negative gain he perceives, he has no recognition — he has no, what we call, cognition, you know; no knowingness — of the fact that he is now over this. He doesn't develop another one. This is a case of an auditor running somebody's body when he's audited, see. And he gets over things, but he hasn't any either recognition or cognition of their absence once they're gone or that he has done any gain.

In other words, he has to be made certain with impact, see. That wouldmake him certain. Just knowing something would not make him certain. So,as long as he's got that impact, he's got some certainty. He's still workingway down in a MEST band, you see. Well, he ought to be doing the traininghimself. He could probably do some training. I mean, in spite of the fact thathe's in a terrible, very interesting state, he could probably do some training.He hired this guy undoubtedly because this guy, I would daresay, has animpact way of talking, you know. He probably talks very certainly, you know.And he's probably awfully mad at all of his students, and he's probably upsetabout the HASI all the time, and he's talking with an impact, you know. And this other guy — ahaanaa! — you know, listens to him. Look at that situation.

Do you know that just a few months ago almost the same identical situation existed in another part of the country? — almost this duplicate situation.

A couple of guys were running a school. They had an authority, by the way, to run this school, but they were leaving almost all of their activities up to a party, who again — no certification, see. Kind of like, here you set up a practice, you see, and then when the patient comes in you let the janitor operate. You get the idea? I mean, it's just this kind of a skin game.

All right. Now, this condition existed in that part of the country just as it's now existing in this other part of the country. What did we do about this early part? Well, everybody said we were being very mean and unfair, but I said that I would shoot on sight, personally, either of these guys unless they followed the following program, period; with no deviation of any kind "thereunfrom." They were to run nothing on nobody, they were to teach nothing, they were to do nothing but R2-16. And I said if they didn't comply, I would look them up personally.

These boys, by the way, had a case that was not expected to live six months, a couple years ago. And just a few months ago — after auditing and so forth — had received some of this "taught" auditing in this area. You know, we'll mix up a little bit of Rosicrucianism and a little bit of yup-yup, and so forth. And she'd gotten some of that auditing and it sent her straight to bed. She is a case, by the way, running without a considerable chunk of her anatomy, and people missing that piece of anatomy are rather apt to be dead in a short space of time unless something is bolstering them up.

Well, she went to bed to die. And this condition was what catalyzed my interest in this area (this sudden occurrence of this woman who had been pretty well off suddenly going to bed). Found out what had happened; got ahold of the auditor who was supposed to be ... Pardon me, I got ahold of an auditor who was interested in her case and who was merely nearby, and gave this auditor complete instructions on the running of R2-16.

Now, what do you know, this auditor is an old-time HDA; hasn't been to a school since, and privately and in a private conversation would probably tell you that Hubbard was a bum and he had done many horrible things. But nevertheless, as happens in most of these cases, when I look them right straight in the teeth they normally say, "Yessir." So this guy said, "Yessir." And he read this set of directions, and he went over and called on this dying woman, and he ran R2-16. And I thought, well, he'll at least have imagination enough to have her touch the bed, you know. I'll be a son of a gun, this guy demanded that she do a complete Opening Procedure of 8-C. And he had this person walking around the room.

First couple of letters I got after this, this person just knew she was dying now. But all of a sudden the person perked up. Next thing I knew, wrote me a letter with tremendous gratitude in it. Next thing I knew, wrote us a terribly angry letter criticizing some of the Dianeticists and Scientologists in the area. Next thing I knew had started a group.

Now, as far as I know, nobody has countermanded any of these orders in that area, and today they have trebled the size of their group, they have a considerable enrollment, they have been able to pay off various debts, and so forth. And you know what they're teaching? You know what they're doing? R2-16! Nothing else, see.

This other area I just mentioned to you where the guy without any training is doing the instruction — that's the same dose of salts they're going to get. They're going to get a nice, mild, kind, ARC letter, inviting them to notice that they are in the unique position of being the only area where Dianetics and Scientology are operating where it isn't working. And whereby I can understand the thirst for individuality, this exceeds even my understanding.

So, I can tell you the future history of it. Along about February we will hear this interest in this area, we will start getting orders for tapes for various other groups now being formed in that area, and so forth.

In the same other area, the first one — the one I mentioned to you whereby I said the woman was dying, and so forth — in that particular area the same condition had already taken place. That was the end, see, and it was just barely popping along, barely in contact, and so forth — until R2-16 comes in. And now we have more congress reservations from that particular area than we have from any other area. And yet these people are not being sold any promises or bill of goods or any hurrah or anything else. They are simply doing modern Scientology — R2-16, Opening Procedure of 8-C.

This guy comes in, he says, "Oh, I — I — I just got to have a space-opera engram run." You say, "The very best way to run that ... See that spot on the wall? Go over and touch it." We found out that the auditors taught this, even poorly, can do it — that they can do it and that it does have results. Now, there are possibly much better techniques; there are tremendous, fancied flurries on this, but it's still, so far as teaching an auditor to teach other auditors and as far as something that could be counted on as going on out through a society, it's R2-16 that'll do it.

Now, let's look back and find out that after we ran an engram it would be necessary to bring this boy into present time. Why run the engram? Why not just bring him into present time? Simple!

Male voice: I suppose.

Now, don't you dare feel like I've stepped on your toes.

Male voice: You haven't. I'm enlightened.

Do you see that?

Male voice: I'm looking forward to it.

This leads us into another thing that I've got to mention to you guys briefly. Let's take an area where you guys might be working; take any, it doesn't matter, see. It's going to be, for a while, a segment of earth, certainly. It's a town; you're going to be working on people. The actual fact is you're working in the field of Dianetics, if that is the case. A town, people, practice, making people better, pushing forward the first four dynamics — to a very marked degree you're working in the field of Dianetics. Don't forget that there is an enormous sphere out from that field. See, there's eight dynamics. And by the way — and you can work independently without further association with the first four that you're now working with. You can work independently in at least three of the remaining four.

See, you could work on the fifth, sixth and seventh dynamics with great ease, but that wouldn't have any — might not have anything to do with man at all, might not have anything to do with this planet at all, see. I mean, this is a wide view. Well, be in a state of mind where you're perfectly prepared to take a wide view.

Now, in working with Homo sapiens in an area, you may find that you will hit certain barriers and obstructions. And the first of them, of course, will be financial and quarters and things like that, but these are materialistic concerns and they are solvable, one way or the other. But now when it comes in to technique — the technique to be employed, the drum to beat, that sort of thing — this you should know something about; definitely should know something about.

I gave you a lecture the other day; told you when you bring them out of mystery, you bring them into confusion before they get into prediction. Very horrible, but they do. You're going to tell these people some things that are going to push them into that confusion about you? No, don't do that.

Now, here's the thing you should worry about, is introducing a confusion into your area. And you introduce that confusion by releasing too much data. By mimeographing PABs, for instance, in the Puget Sound area, and ship-ping to everybody, broadly, indiscriminately, and so on, they managed to have kept Dianetics and Scientology mighty flat out there, just mighty flat. Why?

Supposing the first thing you ever read — just take a number at random — was PAB 17; that's first thing you'd ever seen. I don't know what PAB 17 is offhand, but let's say it had a sudden pinpoint understanding of existence in general. One would completely miss that pinpoint understanding and simply go off into the confusion of how the rest of it related with it, and stay away in droves.

I'll tell you some of the things people have been able to assimilate. You tell them, "Christ set for the goals of man: Wisdom, good health and immortality. You can discover this in your Bible. We are here in our simple way to deliver these goals to man." All right. Now, you try to soak people in any deeper into technology or understanding and you will immediately hand them a data which is so close to truth that you might as well have made them eat an atom bomb. It just goes nyaaaa. And they don't even know that they've eaten the atom bomb. They just know they're confused, and they're mainly confused about you.

So what would you do in an area? You'd keep what you have to say real simple. Now, that doesn't mean you'd go off onto the fake-psychologist path. You know, "Are you worried? Are you anxious? Then come see me." That hasn't been drawing ever since it was invented.

This will draw: "Do you have people in your vicinity who are worried and anxious? We can tell you what to do about them." They have no responsibility for their own worry and anxiety. They have some for the other fellow's. Now, people will come in on that basis — if you've got to mention worry and anxiety. But this is a very bad thing to mention.

"Making the able more able" is a very good thing to say and a very good thing to do. But the main thing to do and say on such a thing is business-like things. Precision. Decision. Not: Oh-ah-hem-haw, so on. But say some-thing and say it definitely.

You, by the way, will run into, as you travel around, some old-time groups, and guys operating, and so forth, who ought to know better — since experience should have told them a long time since. The public is not at all interested in whether or not these people are pro-Hubbard or anti-Hubbard or whether Hubbard lives on the moon or eats sixpences. This has nothing to do with the situation. They are too introverted to suddenly have another personality introduced into the thing. There's no argument as far as they're concerned anyway, and yet a lot of guys operate — have operated in the last four years — on the basis of "We're individual and we're different and if you have any antipathy to Hubbard, and so forth, why, we're ..." Bluuuu! What's this got to do with it?

The public came there because they read something written by Hubbard. That's the usual route. Now they come there and find out they're not going to get it, if they know anything about this, you see. And they just go away. That's all. I mean, total reaction! They simply go away. So you just don't introduce this at all. They come there and they say, "We've read this book and we've heard about this and so forth." And they say, "What can it do?" And you just say, "Well, it can do what it can do. It can make you more able and so on, and now, when are you going to come to our group processing session?" Not 'Are you going to come?" you understand. You're asking them to make a decision. Remember you're always dealing with people who can't do R2-16 when they first come to you. You're going to run Part C of Opening Procedure of 8-C on this person, and say, "Well, do you want to come to our next group meeting? Do you?"

"Well, I don't know. I have so many things to do. And I ..." No, you want to know "when you're coming." You've added a "when," and that requires some slight decision and they don't seem to do that. Well, they're busy comm lagging, so you say at that moment — you don't worry whether they're comm lagging or not, you're not auditing them — you say, "Well, next Sunday will be a good time. Shall we see you then?" "Next Sun-day we have group meeting here, four o'clock." Something on this order. "We will see you then. Look forward to seeing you. Now, remember. And here's a card, and so forth, and it's right here, and you'll know more about it." You go on sitting down, talking to this person and informing them and trying to give them a Professional Course education in what Scientology is or what Dianetics is, you are not only wasting your time, you are driving them away, because you're handing them more truth than they can possibly digest. So your message is, "We're here and you are going to be here too. And just for social politeness, we will let you think you have some decision in this matter," but we're not going to run Part C of Opening Procedure 8-C until the person or the preclear is ready to have it.

If you're running a branch church or something like that, then you certainly say, "Well, we're making man happier. That's what we're doing." And they say, "Well, that's vague. Just what are you doing?" You know? It's not vague. As a matter of fact you just gave them more data than they could digest.

You say, "Well, people come to us and they gain an insight into them-selves and some understanding, and then they do better in life. And you will be here at the next group meeting." Don't ever let anybody walk in without making them come back. You understand? Just don't ever do that. That's just not something you should do. You make their decision for them. And you'll find out that these people will come in and .. .

Next step — next step, if you're running group processing ... Well, we've learned this the hard way. This is not easy knowledge we have come by. We couldn't possibly imagine that people would be this dumb, but they are: You run anything on a broad, open-to-the-public group except Group Opening Procedure and you are in trouble. They stay about six or eight hours of group processing — that may be three or four sessions — and then they're gone with the wind. Why?

Two things happen: (1) they get what they came there for. That's an understandable one. That's the real good-off person, because he's given no further goal, you see, than just sitting there running some commands. The other one is, they are given commands which they cannot handle, and they bog and run away. And it evidently takes them six to eight hours of group processing to hit either of these two states. We have no objection to the first state, but we certainly have an objection to the second one.

Now, just for pure cussedness, on a group that has been coming and coming and coming and hanging around, and doesn't think they need processing, I will occasionally throw them an Australian boomerang, not just a curve. I did, week before last, here at this group session. These guys were being very smug — many of them. You know, "It isn't doing anything for me," and so forth. I, unfortunately, was told this in a couple of different sections. Well, they had had nothing but rather elementary group auditing for a long time. So I gave them some auditing in a group which was a killer. And I didn't drive anybody away, mostly because these guys had had enough Opening Procedure to handle a heavier one. And though I just bogged the living daylights out of some of the cases that were there, these cases suddenly woke up to the fact that they could sure use some more auditing. They woke up to this fact.

So there would be a reason to throw a group a tough process. But actually, today, I don't know any reason to throw them an intermediate process, unless you had contracted to do on the same people — not newcomers in every time, and so forth — a certain number of group auditing sessions which brought them up uniformly, en masse, in tone. But for newcomers and for people coming in, no. You would have no excuse to do anything but Group Opening Procedure as given in Volume I of The Group Auditor's Handbook.

Over in England: "Well, how are we going to keep it interesting? How are we just going to keep these group auditing sessions interesting if we do Group Opening Procedure on everybody who comes in here to be audited?" And they very happily and merrily departed from their instructions, and they started to audit these intermediate processes — not really awfully tough, but not simple enough — and they started losing their people at six to eight hours. A person would come for two or three sessions and disappear.

At first there's a big boom. Six to eight hours of processing went by .. . Why? Guys had walked in, been given such hefty comm lags by intermediate — neither difficult nor easy — processes, that they went away, and they didn't know whether they were walking upside down or right side up. The auditor, in good shape, always overestimates the condition of the people who he's processing. He always says they're in better condition than they are, be-cause he doesn't like to look at that much incomprehensibility. All right. So here we have England blowing up its group sessions in just this way.

All right. You're going to have the public open meetings; the public coming time and time again, time after time, and so forth. Every time you get up there, audit, yourself, just to this degree: give them the same processing. The old-timers will discover one of the most interesting things in the world: they keep getting better on it. Then you'll get them up to a point where they all can do it rather easily and they're getting very, very smug and they say nothing can do anything for them. Of course, they're ready to graduate.

Now, you could either take them up gradually with intermediate processes — running the remainder of The Group Auditor's Handbook — or you could stop them from being smug. And if you want to stop a group from being smug, just simply open up on them with any of the steps in the sixties of the printed edition of The Group Auditor's Handbook. It's just like standing on a rostrum and taking a machine gun to people. You will make a lot of people better. You will change their considerations widely. You won't really hurt any-body. But, boy, it's sure convincing. They'll sit there and realize they're still in the woods. Then give them some more Group Opening Procedure. You've stirred up new material to clear off and get them out of. You see what hap-pens?

Now, I gave a pretty darn rough process this last group processing session I gave, but, you know, there were no beefs. The reason why is because I monitored it against the audience. I waited until every single person in the audience had at least stopped bad comm lags on the process being done. In other words, I pulled them out of it every time I got them into it. But I wasn't giving them terribly rough processes. They were very interesting processes, but they weren't rough. They weren't like week before last — Election of Cause on a group, huh! You realize you'll turn on automatic worry machines, every-thing else? Holy cats, I mean, you just start chewing everybody's machinery up and spitting it out. You can't clean that up in an hour.

You won't do them any harm. They'll be back again. You see, that's too tough for them to run away from. And just to drive my point home a little further: Don't give them one which is not so tough but what they can run away from it; and don't give them one that is just tough enough to restimulate them without doing anything for them. This takes judgment.

So what's this boil down to? This boils down to you operating out independently in some area, trying to run a center, get people in, do this and that in a particular town or something like that — what does it add up to?

It adds up to the fact that the technique which you can safely teach is R2-16. The technique you can safely run on everybody present is R2-16. The technique which you can impart secretly to them as the ne plus ultra of, and that you can train all of the old-time auditors in the area in ... By the way, one of the groups I mentioned to you, I laid that down as a specification: That every old-time auditor in the area had to be contacted and dragged in there and taught R2-16, see.

All right, the one you could safely process on groups would be R2-16 for groups, which is Group Opening Procedure, given in The Group Auditor's Handbook. And all of these processes add up to "Here is present time. We are making you — in Dianetics and Scientology, we are making you (or Scientology) — we're making you a present of present time: Here it is." And boy, you would just go right on out along the line like a rocket. It's being done right now.

Now, you, knowing many other things to do, knowing a great deal more, have a habit or would desire to impart a great deal more information, wouldn't you, than that? And you fail every time you do. You neglect the amount of study and concentration you were given on the rest of the data; you happily neglect this and suddenly hand it over.

You remind me — when you start telling somebody very complicated processes, and so forth — of a janitor I saw one time, out at Inyokern. He was a sweep-up man. And in an absentminded moment, one of the rocket experts that was test firing some WAC Corporals, and so forth, backed him up in the corner while they were both eating lunch. This technician, an engineer, had to stand by and guard the equipment during the lunch hour and he informed me about it. And I saw this sweep-up man, he had been indoctrinated for one hour on the complexities, and so forth, of firing rockets.

You never saw a man in the world who was vacillating quite as rapidly between knowing he was awfully smart — this must be so, because this smart fellow was talking to him — and who was so damn confused. He was really practically spinning. I only uncovered this because he started to tell me how WAC Corporals were fired, see. And this wasn't my job at all. I was on a consultation job at the time. He started to tell me how they were fired. Well, I don't know how they're fired, you see. But I know enough to know he sure didn't know what he was talking about.

So, anytime you supereducate somebody in five minutes, he goes out and he vacillates between being so damn confused he doesn't know which leg he's standing on, and being real smart in his communication of the information to other people. And he will communicate it backwards and upside down with the greatest aplomb you ever saw in your life — and at the same time feel, himself, a tremendous uncertainty and a confusion about the whole thing.

In other words, you've handed your hard-won information over to a bracket of uncertainty and laid yourself wide open in this attitude to sort of a quackery. You know, they know these people don't know. People sound like they know something, but they don't know anything. And they are confused and they're not producing any results. Everybody says, "Well, it's just a fake," because the people who are telling them about it are fakes. You follow me then?

What's the safe route through this one? The real safe route through? The best one to steer? When you get hold of a guy and you're only going to be able to talk to him about it for a short time, just assume that you know the entire subject of medicine and don't try to communicate a twelve-year education to them — or whatever doctors go to school now; could be an eighty-year education — to this fellow in five minutes. That wouldn't be possible, so why do it? And if you're going to have him for any slight length of time for training at all, teach him a process which you know he will get results with and which can't possibly kick back, and that process would be R2-16. And if you're having trouble from old-time auditors or people who are being very rebellious in your particular area, get them all by the nape of the neck, get them in and teach them R2-16.

They'd get more results than they've ever had before. This doesn't say that you can't get preclears who won't benefit terribly from it. There are pre-clears so low down that they should have had Mimicry or something, you see. But this would be the exceptional case and everybody would understand it as an exceptional case. You'd certainly get everything from the very, very rough Dianetic case that we ordinarily would even consent to process vaguely, up to these real smoothies. And you do R2-16 on some kid ready to exteriorize any-how, and he will go right on and exteriorize. It's a fascinating process.

So when you try to teach something to somebody, when you try to hold down an area and so forth, you take a simple communication and make sure it's communicated. When you try to audit a preclear for a short time, take a simple communication, and audit it. R2-16 is a simple communication. Now, that will give you success. Now of course, you, being a better auditor than that, can go on when you're auditing an individual preclear and audit anything you want on him.

You've got these basic six steps. There are certain positions where they fit. But remember, an auditor right here failed the other day, dismally, be-cause he jumped into Opening Procedure by Duplication without ever having touched two-way communication. It was the most gorgeous bust you ever wanted to inspect in your life. Took about three hours of Straightwire to straighten out his preclear, even get his preclear running back to battery. His preclear was about .5, see. This person doing Opening Procedure by Duplication, my God, this person started to hemorrhage and everything else. See, it was too rough.

One more word here — when the printed edition of The Auditor's Hand-book comes out, you'll find out it has about seventy-two processes in it. And you can easily categorize these processes into the six processes which are the most basic processes. You'll find most of these processes are simply knowingness processes. They are demonstration processes. But where they are not, they are so marked. I call most of the processes in there, the bulk of them, the majority of them, about one-star processes. R2-16 would be about a ten-star process. So would "What can you accept and reject in your environment?" be a ten-star process. That can be run on a Straightwire case. He won't get himself in deep with it. It'll run on almost any level.